Live data from Hacker News

China Is Nationalizing Its Tech Sector

bloomberg.com

91–100 of 228 posts

Re: China Is Nationalizing Its Tech Sector

#91
post #85
post #74

Actually this is not even close to nationalization. The article's title is misleading even by the standard's of the article, which goes on to call it, "quasi-nationalization". But even that is misreading the situation. The objective is not "control" of the tech sector as the article pretends, it is just greater collaboration. So the state and tech companies can both benefit. The state doesn't want the burden of takin…

Yes, comrade, you are so very right! It is much more useful for us to see the truth of how great China and it's future are! Truly there is no need to worry, the Party will take care of all!

beep boop

Detected sarcasm directed at our great China and our great party in citizen d59e769233b8502f567e082527400594.

Deduct 10 social credit points.

2 social credit points can be immediately regained by three recitations of "和谐社会".

beep

Re: China Is Nationalizing Its Tech Sector

#92
post #73

The "trade war" thing has been the most/only interesting ideas to come from trump, to me. It was interesting in that he did recognized (fluked into?) an actual shift in public/expert position. China is the pro-trade side. They'll be willing to make concessions, do the work, etc. It's the beijing consensus now, not washington. Large american companies are still on the pro-trade side, being multinationals. They also ha…

> Who says a fake Gucci is a crime, if the buyer knows it's fake. It's not enough for the buyer to know it's fake, everyone who sees it must also know it's fake, or else the fake is freeriding on the cachet generated by Gucci's marketing. People buy prominently branded fashion objects for their signalling value more than their utility value. Signalling which is easy to fake isn't very valuable. It's perfectly possibl…

I wasn't trying to make a semantic point, more of a sovereignty or legislative point.

I'm perfectly willing to concede the semantic point: that bag is fake. The legislative one is "does thia have to be a crime?"

Trademark (like most IP rules) are ultimately decided mostly on utility grounds. Does this IP system produce or destroy economic value, and who's value is it producing and destroying.

Maybe China can do without trademarks and patents. Whatever you think about ip laws in general, there is certainly a self interested swing in favour of more liberal if you don't currently own any IP.

Re: China Is Nationalizing Its Tech Sector

#93

> Tencent Holdings Ltd., with nearly 1 billion users, reported that its net income almost doubled in the last quarter, to $3.3 billion. Alibaba Group Holding Ltd., which dominates online retail, is expecting growth of 55 percent this year. Investors may worry about Chinese debt, but they're giddy about Chinese tech. Anyone knows the SEC equivalent site for pulling revenue numbers for Chinese companies? If possible, d…

> Tencent Holdings Ltd., with nearly 1 billion users

Sounds reasonable. I would start wondering if they claim 20 Billion users, but hey, you never now.

Alibaba is also an outstanding company:

http://brontecapital.blogspot.de/2015/10/alibaba-yeah-right-...

http://brontecapital.blogspot.de/2015/09/job-interview-quest...

Re: China Is Nationalizing Its Tech Sector

#94
post #61

The "trade war" thing has been the most/only interesting ideas to come from trump, to me. It was interesting in that he did recognized (fluked into?) an actual shift in public/expert position. China is the pro-trade side. They'll be willing to make concessions, do the work, etc. It's the beijing consensus now, not washington. Large american companies are still on the pro-trade side, being multinationals. They also ha…

> Imagine a Chinese company operating > in the states, with an a fully imported > senior management and all "c-level" > discussions in chinese. In other words, imagine a Chinese company operating in the US the same way US multinationals operate on continental Europe.

Essentially, that's exactly what I meant :)

Europe and the US have a very extreme history. These trade norms were established when America was either your (as a west European) your saviour from fascism and protection from Stalinism, or your occupier. They were also fabulously wealthy, successful and powerful.

People have forgotten over the last 10 or 20 years, how things were until the early 90s, at least in terms of narrative perspective.

Re: China Is Nationalizing Its Tech Sector

#95

The "trade war" thing has been the most/only interesting ideas to come from trump, to me. It was interesting in that he did recognized (fluked into?) an actual shift in public/expert position. China is the pro-trade side. They'll be willing to make concessions, do the work, etc. It's the beijing consensus now, not washington. Large american companies are still on the pro-trade side, being multinationals. They also ha…

> China is the pro-trade side. They'll be willing to make concessions, do the work, etc. It's the beijing consensus now, not washington.

China isn't pro trade per se. They're pro export, in the old mercantilist sense. They've spent the last 30 years heavily restricting trade access into and within China by foreign entities.

They'll amass around a $900 billion to $1 trillion trade surplus with the EU over the five years 2015-2019. For the US of course it's even worse, closer to a likely $1.7 trillion over that time.

Here's how the China trade illusion works (and the West keeps falling for it for some reason):

Have vast, rigid restrictions on market access that few to none of your big trading partner nations have. Use an endless variety of means - some subtle, some beligerent - to thwart foreign entry and competition with domestic businesses (whether state owned or entirely private).

When caught behaving badly or not living up to promised standards (eg for the last two decades re the World Trade Organization), promise to improve, drag your feet, buy more time, make subtle improvements, tout those improvements while moving backwards on other things. All the while your actual goal is to get big enough to not have to ever play nice.

While you do all of that, pretend you're in favor of free trade. Tout that you are, yell it from the roof tops. It doesn't matter if you actually are, it doesn't matter what the actual condition of trade access is on the ground, what matters is that you act as the face of free trade through the process of touting it. It's all about buying more time by sowing confusion over what the real picture is and what's actually occurring (are they liberalizing, are they not, are they going to?).

Then one day in the near future you wake up and have a $30 trillion economy with little to no need of the imports from the EU or US. You also no longer need their capital at all. The foreign traders and investors can see themselves out if they disagree.

> Imagine a Chinese company operating in the states, with an a fully imported senior management and all "c-level" discussions in chinese. I dunno.

All foreign corporations are free to do exactly that in the US market. The sole practical consideration is being able to speak English to interact with the wider economy. If Toyota or Nintendo want to run their US subsidiaries with imported talent, they can do so. There are probably no large economies that have been more welcoming to foreign companies and imports than the US over the last 30 or 40 years. We let Toyota come in and kick Detroit's ass, and that was at a time when Detroit still had immense political power. Picture China allowing Google to do the same to Baidu right now.

Re: China Is Nationalizing Its Tech Sector

#96
post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As someone with parents who experienced the USSR, this is what really terrifies me about China's rise, and the reason I can't say I'm against a trade war if it hinders them more than us. Imagine a world in which China holds more control... a country with little legal or social respect for individualism, where your fate is 'centrally planned' by how impressive your maths skills are. By contrast, ~30% of American billi…

arent's you romanticizing the US a bit much? the country was built by slaves. "the US will self-select for the ambitious and the inspired and those who desire freedom" this is just hogwash

The vast majority of physical and intellectual labor that “built” the United States was performed by free men. I’m not saying there wasn’t slavery, but your assertion is absurd.

Re: China Is Nationalizing Its Tech Sector

#97
post #73

The "trade war" thing has been the most/only interesting ideas to come from trump, to me. It was interesting in that he did recognized (fluked into?) an actual shift in public/expert position. China is the pro-trade side. They'll be willing to make concessions, do the work, etc. It's the beijing consensus now, not washington. Large american companies are still on the pro-trade side, being multinationals. They also ha…

> Who says a fake Gucci is a crime, if the buyer knows it's fake. It's not enough for the buyer to know it's fake, everyone who sees it must also know it's fake, or else the fake is freeriding on the cachet generated by Gucci's marketing. People buy prominently branded fashion objects for their signalling value more than their utility value. Signalling which is easy to fake isn't very valuable. It's perfectly possibl…

It's worth having a dialogue about this. This specific type of signaling (flashing brands) is enforced by social rules that prevent chameleons. It would be pretty easy to imagine relaxing this - allowing products to appear externally in any form, as long as their nature is always recognizable to the owner (to prevent fraud). It's not clear this would be bad for society.

IANAL, but it seems to me that plastering logos all over a handbag is an abuse of trademark functionality doctrine. The function of the pattern is to make the owner appear wealthy, not to prevent buyers from being misled.

Re: China Is Nationalizing Its Tech Sector

#98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> the original TPP had plenty of protection for IP. The orange demagogue ditched the treaty You mean the same position taken by the other party's entire field in that election? (even if you suspect that Clinton's opposition was disingenuous, and forced by pressure from Sanders)

As in: "I am not wrong because everyone else is doing it"? Anyway, I am not too concerned with your country's future since I am not American.

Don't be mean. We're all just talking, we're friends.

Re: China Is Nationalizing Its Tech Sector

#99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> the original TPP had plenty of protection for IP. The orange demagogue ditched the treaty You mean the same position taken by the other party's entire field in that election? (even if you suspect that Clinton's opposition was disingenuous, and forced by pressure from Sanders)

As in: "I am not wrong because everyone else is doing it"? Anyway, I am not too concerned with your country's future since I am not American.

The world economy is not a zero-sum game. You're making the same mistake that Trump is. Everyone benefits from China, the United States, Europe et al becoming (and staying) rich and prosperous. We should all be concerned.

Re: China Is Nationalizing Its Tech Sector

#100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Imagine a Chinese company operating in the states, with an a fully imported senior management and all "c-level" discussions in chinese. For what it's worth, you just described two separate companies I've consulted with, and I'm sure there are many others.

Not to mention Korean ones (Samsung is famous for this). There are enough Chinese expats in the states that I’ve heard there are even a few American startups that conduct business in Chinese.

More than a few.
Post reply on HN